Employees State Insurance v. M/S. Golden Dragon Chinese

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.A.No.3227 of 2014 1.Employees State Insurance Corporation Limited through Its Deputy Director.

2.The Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation ..

Appellant vs.

M/s.Golden Dragon Chinese Restaurant by its Proprietor S.P.Jagannathan Santham Complex, Sarada College Road, Salem. .. Respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of ESI Act, 1948, against the order dated 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Judge, Salem. For Appellants : M/s.K.Prabakar For Respondents : Mr.D.Shivakumaran

O R D E R

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.38 of 2000 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The substantial question of law raised in the appeal on hand by the appellants is that was it correct for the lower Court to hold that the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act have no application to the respondent?

3. The said question cannot be construed as an acceptable substantial question of law. Section 82 of the ESI Act contemplates that " an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees? Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law". Thus, in the absence of any substantial question of law, no appeal is entertainable and such a substantial question of law must be an acceptable and capable of being adjudicated with reference to the question of law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants made an attempt to elaborate the facts and circumstances and further, made a request to consider those facts which became final. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellants solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the deposition of P.W.1 by stating that more than 10 employees were working in the first respondent Establishment during the relevant point of time in the year 1996/1997. However, those factual aspects were well considered by the trial Court and a clear finding was arrived. Thus, this Court cannot go into those facts nor construe those facts as acceptable substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 82 of the Act.

If at all the authorities are of the opinion that some irregularities are found, then they are at liberty to initiate further action by following the procedures contemplated under the statute. However, the order in question in the present appeal was passed in the year 2003 and further, the inspection pertains to the year 1996/1997. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.38 of 2000 stands confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar ssb To The Judge, Labour Court, Salem +1cc to Mr.V.Sekar, Advocate, SR.NO. 13779 +1cc to Mr.K.Prabakar, Advocate, SR.NO. 12677 C.M.A.No.3227 of 2014 AK-II(CO) KKN 22.04.2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.